Sunil Das v. State Of West Bengal

23.12.2020 Sl. No.106 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 10608 of 2020 [via video conferencing] In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.12.2020 in connection with Maipith Coastal Police Station Case No. 57 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020 under Sections 147/148/149/447/436/325/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

And In Re: Sunil Das ... ... Petitioner Mr. Shasanka Sekhar Saha .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee .. Advocate Mr. Soumya Nag .. Advocate ... ... for the de-facto complainant Mr. Prasun Kr. Datta .. Advocate Mr. Pradipta Ganguly .. Advocate ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to political rivalry. It is further submitted that co-accused persons have been granted regular bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

We have examined the statement of the wife of the deceased. Specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the assault and setting the house on fire. Petitioner does not stand on the same footing with the co-accused persons who are on regular bail. In view of the role of the petitioner in the alleged crime and the gravity of the offence, we are not inclined in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)